Postal Power. Enjoy My Freeman!

[Grench]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

This reminds me of Judge Roy Bean spinning an arrest in California and trying to say that stamping one's checks with the verbiage will land one in jail.
The Franking Priviliage, as it is called, is reserved (in the united States of America government) to Congressmen/women. Used only for official business, all one congressman/woman as to do is sign their name in the upper right corner of an envelope and presto, it is mailed for free! They have the privilage to use the mail at no cost to them. Franking is done so that no stamp is used. By using a stamp, Franking does not exist. If anything, one has just pre-cancelled their on stamp by writing on it.
Please do not insult our intelligence again ND. Many of us here can see right through scare-tactics and propaganda.

Your welcome, Charesa6 and thanks to all for reading. And the most important question I have is: If I signed my name right below the stamp with POSTMASTER stamped accross my siganture couldn't I file criminal and civil charges against the receiver for fraud, retaining a benfit, KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, and INTENTIONAL commiting commerical liablity in "insolvents" (bankrupt+benfit=LLC) of a offer made by the POSTMASTER and the Postamster General?

Regards To All,
Phil
Without Recourse

[Grench]

Originally Posted by rentiap

After reading ND's last post.
I'm thinking of changing my curtain list to.

The mental masturbation list.


OK it's done

I appreicate the fact you know better when you SEE (fear of UNDER-standing) a clear and utter dumb-dumb's when one make's himself one.

Regards,
Phil

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

What a load of complete and utter horse hockey.
Oh really? That must explain why the concepts in the article contribute to success.

Th rest of this is too silly to even bother commenting on.
In other words, you have run out of ideas or have become temporarily bored of belittling the truth.

This is not quite the silliest thing I have seen from wealth4freedom but it comes close.
Being SO adamant that references here are "horse hockey" and "silly", you certainly do spend quite a good amount of time trying to communicate that. Now THAT'S silly.

silly: weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: a silly writer.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Grench

I appreicate the fact you know better when you SEE (fear of UNDER-standing) a clear and utter dumb-dumb's when one make's himself one.

Regards,
Phil

I tell you one thing, its work. I saw the judge recuse himself, and 3rd party intervene shyster she didn't make it to the court throughout the whole presiding in court.

[charlesa6]

O yea, Toast.

[mrg]

Yes!!

72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162
MARCH 1, 1933


[CHAPTER 162]

March 1, 1933 [H.R. 14401.]
[Public, No. 405.]

Washington City post office.



Jurisdiction, etc. of, placed under the Secretary of the Treasury.

Vol. 30 P. 614.
U.S.C., p. 1306

AN ACT

To provide for placing the jurisdiction, custody, and control of the Washington City post office in the Secretary of the Treasury.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of July 1, 1898 (U.S.C., title 40, sec. 285), is hereby amended to give to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive jurisdiction, control, and custody of the Washington City post office and the additions thereto, located at North Capitol Street and Massachusetts Avenue, to be operated by him the same as other public buildings under his custody and control.

Approved, March 1, 1933.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that!


Thank you!

[charlesa6]

Gentlemen!! Well!! What are will get here. Now you have it. Thanks, mrg.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

Gentlemen!! Well!! What are will get here. Now you have it. Thanks, mrg.

please rephrase.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by mrg

Yes!!
72d Congress Sess. II CHS. 160-162
MARCH 1, 1933
[CHAPTER 162]
March 1, 1933 [H.R. 14401.]
[Public, No. 405.]
Washington City post office.

Let's see, a law more than 70 years old, that dealt, not with the internal operations of the USPS in Washington DC but with the responsibilities for the very elegant building which was the main Post Office in DC (now the Postal Museum). Nothing at all about the 50 or so branch post offices around the city, most of them using rented space in office buildings.
Even if the law is still good 70 years later, it's still not as advertised.